Nice Short Summary of the Shroud of Turin

imageLorie Wimble, who describes herself as the "Liberal Voice" of the political blog Conservative Haven, writes a nice summary to introduce the David Rolfe/BBC video, Shroud of Turin. The piece is posted today at TechI:

There have been many claims and a handful of studies about the famed Shroud of Turin over the last century that has culminated over the past two decades into a state of further mystery. Some believe it is a masterful fake crafted in the 14th century. Others believe it is the linen that wrapped the body of Jesus Christ prior to His resurrection. Most don’t consider at all, preferring to avoid the clash of science and religion that it represents.

The problem is that the “clash” seems to be heading towards a center point where science and religion merge.

Many thoughts of its authenticity were apparently debunked 20 years ago when carbon dating placed the linen-cotton mix of the shroud to the 14th century. Science investigated. Science spoke. The questions were put to rest. There are several problems that have risen since then that appear to cast more doubt on the accuracy of the dating than the authenticity of the shroud itself. The most glaring challenge that still has not been met is that with today’s advanced technology, we have not found a way to duplicate the effect. Many scientists and scholars have concluded beyond a doubt that there is no way it could have been created by natural or man-made means today, let alone 650 years ago.

The topic deserves a deeper study than we can put together today, but this video from the BBC touches on several very compelling pieces of evidence that the shroud existed well before the carbon dating said. More importantly, it shows how the shroud could not have been made by man.

(Video Link)

21 thoughts on “Nice Short Summary of the Shroud of Turin”

  1. I watched through the whole video posted here on this site – I found I had tech problems attempting to view it on the Tech I site. I feel that anyone already reasonably well-informed about the Shroud would not learn a great deal more from the video, although the theory about the side-strip being used as a tying band and then afterward at some time later sewn into the main cloth, was a new aspect that has not been extensively discussed before to my knowledge. The detailed close-up match with the Oviedo cloth was also well done.

    The theory that the linen had bound CO molecules into it over the course of time was left inconclusive, although Dr Ramsey of Oxford appeared prepared to consider the possibility.

    What did disappoint me was that there was no mention whatsoever of the inept sampling for the original C14 tests, and as shown by tests on the Raes sample with its isolated contamination of cotton. that it may well have been taken from a medieval invisble mend. We could speculate whether the presence of Flury-Lemburg in the video may have compromised such a discussion.

    Thiebault Heimburger has been insistent that there is no other cotton contamination of the cloth, only in the Raes sample virtually from the same location from where the C14 sample was taken. This aspect screams out for attention, and possibly at one fell swoop might well resolve the problem of the errant results. On the other hand, there are those scientifically qualified who also suspect that C14 tests even on the parent linen may still be inconclusive.

    There’s too much that we don’t know, but which ought to be known! An atmosphere of mystery and Oh Gosh or Wow factor seem regrettably to be essential ingredients for any such video intended for public consumption, but I feel we could do with a lot more science and a lot less speculation.

  2. Is it certain that the side-strip is in fact detached? Accounts suggest that it is so well correlated that individual threads can be traced more or less continuously from the main cloth, through the seam and into the side-strip, with very close precision. I believe the Raes sample contained a bit of seam – did it come apart into two pieces?

  3. Dave wrote:

    “the theory about the side-strip being used as a tying band and then afterward at some time later sewn into the main cloth, was a new aspect that has not been extensively discussed before to my knowledge.”
    As early as 1994 (my paper to Daniel Raffard de Brienne) and 1997 (my memo in Nice), I first mentioned the strip band might well have been cut off from the main cloth for tight wrapping purpose. I also discussed at length the issue with ron on this very blog.

    1. For instance on March 5, 2012 at 5:54 pm | #23, I wrote:

      “Jackson changed his mind in the late 1990s i.e. after he read either French Shroud scholar Legrand or the memo I wrote in which I first emitted the side strip theory (just in case you still want to ignore the fact). Though jackson included Legrand and Hamon’s side strip theory afterward, the Shroud still appear loosely wrapped around the body. He first thought the Shroud was LOOSELY draped and only slightly changed his mind.”

      I also commented on Mechthild Flury-Lemberg’s & César Barta’s primeval fold theory…

    2. Most curiously, my first theoritical/experimental reconstruction (described in my 1994 paper & 1997 memo) of the TS man’s wrapping of the side-strip is exactly the same as the one by Jackson in the video. The TRUE fact is ‘his’ side-strip theory is POSTERIOR to mine and Legrand’s…

  4. Typo: the side strip might well have been cut off from the main cloth for tight wrapping purpose and then resewn. I also discussed at length the issue with Ron on this very blog.

  5. Besides, Jackson made a gross error in his reconstruction as he used twice the side-strip (both as part of the main clothe AND as a bandage that would have been cut off from the said clothe).

    1. Seriously Max, what difference would that make…really? Take a good look at how he folds the shroud over the body and then tucks the sides in and folds the sides over, if the side-strip mistakingly was left on the Shroud he used for this demonstration, (and we can not be quite sure about this from the video) it would not effect anything anyways.

      You claim to have come up with the side-strip idea before Dr Jackson and I have no reason to question this, so in saying that I have a question; Have you noticed any ‘signs’ on the image that may back this hypothesis. Such as what Dr Jackson eluded to with the possible image disruption under the chin?

      Thanks,

      R

      1. (Ron, you wroet: “and we can not be quite sure about this from the video”; Really? Jackson would have had to have a change of cloth in the meantime… and his ‘extra’ bandage was already at hand…

  6. Ron,

    The TRUE face is there are TWO disruptions, not just one: one at the neck and one at head summit…

  7. And what about Jackson’s dummy/burial cloth markings and the forward-tilted head, the curved back, the cloth folding at the buttock level etc? His reconstruction is heavily flawed to say the least.

  8. BTW Jackson’s reconstruction is just pioneering work by a physicist (i.e. a non-archae(crypto)ologist).

  9. Reminder: contrary to many a Shroud scholar, as early as the 12th century CE, the Pray codex benedictine monk artist was aware ot a folding of Yeshua’s burial cloth at the buttock level.

  10. As Daveb already drew attention to…I also wondered why there was no reference to the possibilty that the sample cloth used to do the carbon dating ….may have been taken from the repaired portion of the shroud.

    I’m looking forward to someday seeing another carbon testing…from an area that we are certain was not a repaired sample.

Comments are closed.